It is further stated there:
"Indeed, the normative baggage of the words 'employee' and 'employer' is not determined by the urisprudental meaning of these terms. The meaning of these terms is functional... The meaning of the words 'employee' and 'employer' varies according to its context, and its context is determined by its purpose" (ibid.).N
These words, which were said regarding the interpretation of the term "employee" according to the purpose of the law in which it appears, are also true in relation to the system of factual circumstances in which it is examined. This was discussed by the Honorable Judge Varda Wirth-Livne in the Collective Dispute Case (Tel Aviv) 1148/02 The New General Workers' Union - El Al Israel Airlines in a Tax Appeal [published in Nevo] (March 15, 2005) (hereinafter: the El Al case), where the right of air and land flight attendants to wages and social rights during the period of a training course for their position was discussed. In the El Al case, it was held that despite the centrality of the mixed test as a test for recognizing a person as an "employee", there are situations in which the mixed test is not the most appropriate test. Its application without reference to the special characteristics of the case, andwe will add without reference to the industrial context, may lead to undesirable results. In a review of examples of situations in which the mixed test was not used, the Honorable Justice Wirth-Livne held that:
"This is how the courts act when they are required to determine whether a person employed by a member of his family is an 'employee' for the purposes of the National Insurance Law [Consolidated Version], 5755-995). In these situations, in which a distinction must be made between a person who performed his work as an "employee" and someone who performed his work as a mere "family helper", the courts base their decisions on special tests such as the scope of work hours, the realism of wages, etc. (National Insurance Institute 20105/96 Yahalom vs. National Insurance Institute, [published in Nevo] PDA 36, 603; National Labor Court Hearing 55/6-0 Dorit Schwartz - National Insurance Institute, PDA 23, 202). Even when the court was required to distinguish between "employee" and "volunteer," it did so on the basis of special tests, which correspond to the characteristics of the engagement (Labor Appeal 1270/00 Ahuva (Agi) Friedman vs. Eliezer Hoz, [published in Nevo], PDA 38, 39).